Edison wants to restart one of San Onofre's nuclear reactors

[FBaggins]

4. "Major" is a relative term.

There hasn't been anything identified that could have caused a meltdown. The gap between the release that would set off a radiation alarm and damage that could cause a meltdown is huge. (and, of course, the pumps kept working for the time between the earthquake and the tsunami).

But I can save you lots of time trying to debate it. Other's have tried that spin (that it wasn't really the tsunami and loss of generators that caused the crisis, it was the earthquake). They always start with these un-sourced quotes from people who clearly have no expertise. We play around for a few posts and then it always comes down to a simple question that they never answer... and drop the conversation. So let's just jump to the end, shall we?

Quite a number of reactors in Japan had similar (or greater) ground movement (relative to their design basis) from this quake or a previous one (95, 99, 2005, 2007). Fukushima wasn't even the closest plant to this earthquake. Why is it that all three of the units that lost backup generation melted down yet not a single one of the other units sustained any damage like the anonymous "workers" above claim to have seen? Units 5&6 are right there on the same property. Why didn't the pipes buckle there?

Just a really odd coincidence?